Thread: The Elephant that's in the room is tumbling...

Controlling the population itself is easy, just educate people. There's a well-established pattern in super-developed countries of birth rates plummeting once the society reaches a certain level of education and technology. For example, Japan is below replacement, and most of Western Europe will be very soon. Unfortunately, in each of these countries, the drop in birth rate has been more than made up for with an increase in energy use. So we're back to the same problem under a different guise: exponential growth.

In fact, a little bit of thinking will reveal that any attempt to impede the exponential growth of the ultimate limiting factor -- energy -- is doomed to fail and indeed makes no sense.

To see why, let's go back to the analogy of population. Imagine you told a group of people that they can each have 3 kids, but those children can each have only 2, and their children are only allowed to have 1 each, and so on, until you're at generation 10 and each child is only allowed to have 0.3 children. This seems, and in fact is, completely arbitrary and very unnatural. But this is exactly the situation you get when you try to impose even a high power law on something that wants to be exponential. Exponential growth trumps all. So, you can't stop it and shouldn't even try.

What to do then? Move. The universe is a big place, and intelligent life is probably fairly rare. If we begin to colonize space, we buy ourselves time. How much? Well, the number of worlds out there grows with only the 3rd power of distance travelled. That's not even close to exponential. However, even if we do expand exponentially, we will still buy ourselves anywhere from thousands to millions of years to survive and thrive as a species, and perhaps in that time we will develop a more permanent solution.

Make deserts inhabitable?

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

Make deserts inhabitable?

That's not sufficient in the slightest. Growth is exponential. Even if you could increase the carrying capacity of the Earth by two or even four-fold, because of the nature of exponentials, that would increase the remaining time very little.

We all know we need war. There's just no one to admit how to start one properly and not get their ass owned.

~

We can't stop the population growth, it is a natural tendency. Sure, we can educate the populous; slow its growth down a fraction, but that's it. Not even poverty itself slows down the population inflation's of third world countries.

I thinking exceeding the "earths sustainable capacity" is a very long way off, and by the time that has arrived, humans would have been developed enough to have other plans and methods for advanced survival; perhaps even to the point of exploring space for resources (not necessarily food, but may impact food and survival).

Originally Posted by really

We can't stop the population growth, it is a natural tendency. Sure, we can educate the populous; slow its growth down a fraction, but that's it. Not even poverty itself slows down the population inflation's of third world countries.

I thinking exceeding the "earths sustainable capacity" is a very long way off, and by the time that has arrived, humans would have been developed enough to have other plans and methods for advanced survival; perhaps even to the point of exploring space for resources (not necessarily food, but may impact food and survival).

Just to ensure no more question or debate about these issues, let us examine the evidence and let it speak for itself. I will hardly contribute my own conjecture here, if at all.

Population Growth

Originally Posted by http://www.popline.org/docs/0892/077114.html

Since 1968, at least 200 million people--mostly children--have perished needlessly of hunger and hunger-related diseases. The size of the human population is now 5.3 billion and growing. In 1988, for the 1st time since World War II, the US consumed more grain than it grew. About 1/3 of the country's grain crop was lost to a severe drought--roughly the fraction that is normally exported. Over a hundred nations depend on food imported from North America, and only the presence of large carryover stocks prevented a serious food crisis. World grain production peaked in 1986 and then-- for the 1st time in 40 years--dropped for 2 consecutive years. In those 2 years, world population grew by the equivalent of the UK, France, and West Germany. In Africa south of the Sahara, production per capita has been declining for more than 20 years and in Latin America since 1981

Originally Posted by http://www.popline.org/docs/0793/201114.html

Between 1850 and 1950, the index of urbanization changed at a much higher rate than from 1800 to 1850, but the rate of change from 1950 to 1960 was twice that of the preceding 50 years. With the advanced nations having slackened their rate of urbanization, developing countries are responsible for the world's rapid urbanization. Today's underdeveloped countries are urbanizing more rapidly than the industrial nations did in their heyday. Today in the underdeveloped countries, the towns and cities have only a slight disadvantage in fertility, and their old disadvantage in mortality has been reversed: their growth is not fueled by rural-urban migration but by natural increase. The rapid growth of cities in the advanced countries, painful though it was, solved the problem of excess rural population. Now underdeveloped countries are experiencing an even more rapid urban growth, but urbanization is not solving their rural ills. In developing countries, city growth has become increasingly unhinged from economic development and hence from rural-urban migration. It derives in greater degree from overall population growth, and this growth in nonindustrial lands has become unprecedented because of modern health techniques combined with high birth rates. It seems plain that the only way to stop urban crowding and to solve most of the urban problems besetting both the developed and the underdeveloped nations is to reduce population growth.

Originally Posted by http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/269/5222/341

Earth's capacity to support people is determined both by natural constraints and by human choices concerning economics, environment, culture (including values and politics), and demography. Human carrying capacity is therefore dynamic and uncertain. Human choice is not captured by ecological notions of carrying capacity that are appropriate for nonhuman populations. Simple mathematical models of the relation between human population growth and human carrying capacity can account for faster-than-exponential population growth followed by a slowing population growth rate, as observed in recent human history.

Further UN Population Reports:
+ http://www.un.org/esa/population/pub...ixbilpart1.pdf

Climate Problems and Population Significance







Summary and Discussion

Population: There is a significant population growth issue. Although it is not changing at a significant rate, it is growing exponentially. The earth's sustainability is not effectively calculated, but we can see the consequences of the population. Studies also show that urbanization and education does not reduce population growth - people still hump like rabbits. (As really said)

Climate Crisis: Anthropogenic CO2 contribution is significant as it contributes roughly 50% of Co2 levels. This is in conjunction with the over-population of the planet. While the planet is in its typical pattern of global warming, the contribution of anthropogenic Co2 is significantly higher than the planet has ever seen on record.

What do you think...?

~

Originally Posted by O'nus

Just to ensure no more question or debate about these issues, let us examine the evidence and let it speak for itself. I will hardly contribute my own conjecture here, if at all.

Just others' conjecture, huh? I will be brief because I agree on some points and on the others, I think it's pointless to try to fight argument by intimidation. I know you have about 1000 more hockey stick graphs.

Originally Posted by O'nus

Population Growth

Even more revealing is the longer timescale, showing the knee of the curve about 10,000 years ago. At the scale of decades, it almost looks linear, but that's just due to the fact the exponential curves are continuous, which is equivalent to saying that they can be linearized. Anyway, it speaks for itself.

Originally Posted by O'nus

Climate Problems and Population Significance

And you were doing so well...

That graph is bollucks, and I'll tell you why: look at the horizontal scale. Notice that the spike at the end is so thin that it can't even be accurately shown on this graph, because the time scale is a massive 50,000 year increment. Also note that the intervals for data points in the preceding 400,000 years were probably taken from geologic records laid down hundreds of years apart. This means that if a spike ever did occur in the past, it would be invisible on the graph if it lasted less than a few hundred years. Finally, notice that any spike on this graph has obviously been magnified by taking out the bottom half of the vertical scale.

Also, on a more general note, "argument by graph" is not and has never been a valid scientific tool. Graphs are meant to inform the public, not rigorously support hypotheses.

NEXT!

Originally Posted by O'nus

This graph is too short. Also, hello, we're talking ppb here. That should be a big clue to anyone reading it that we may be getting into the realm of catastrophic cancellation and other small-number-sensitivity affects. Ever hear of error bars? Error hear of solid statistics?

Also, many of these monitoring stations were built in rural areas at the time but have subsequently been claimed for urban or industrial use. Why is this significant? A factory next door will make CO2 levels spike if we're only talking ppb. Now, I'm not saying CO2 hasn't gone up, I'm just saying those graphs are unscientific.

Originally Posted by O'nus

Many problems here. I've mentioned all of them for previous graphs. Too short, no error bars, no solid stats, and no solid science. For all we know, that "temperature anomaly" could be wrong. What if the norm is actually 2 deg higher than what it's at today? Then the graph takes on a very positive spin.

Originally Posted by O'nus

Studies also show that urbanization and education does not reduce population growth - people still hump like rabbits.

You forgot to include the studies. Actually, Japan and Western Europe are either stable or decreasing in population (ignoring population lag). Although I agree that the population is increasing exponentially on the whole. But let's not toss in the rubbish with the facts. Education does reduce the rate.

Originally Posted by O'nus

Climate Crisis: Anthropogenic CO2 contribution is significant as it contributes roughly 50% of Co2 levels.

First of all, it ain't 50%. It's more like 3%. I don't know where in the hell you got 50%.

Second, I see no reason whatsoever to conflate the real issue of exponential growth with the artificial issue of global warming. Is the prospect of running out of food not scary enough? We also have to be have a "climate crisis"?

Third, global warming isn't nearly as catastrophic as an ice age. Not by a long, long, long shot. Global warming could kill a tenth of the human population. An ice age could kill all animals larger than a foot across. Gee, I would prefer to err on the side of warming. Especially considering climate scientists agree that were it not for warming, we would be headed for an ice age.

We've already overpopulated the earth.

Our inability to live as we do, at our current numbers, without causing pervasive environmental degradation is the very definition of carrying capacity overshoot.

What is the greater threat to human welfare: the possibility that humane efforts to address population growth might be abused, or our ongoing failure to act to prevent hundreds of millions, even billions, dying as a result of global ecological collapse?

And your idea of populating other planets... Are you mad? We've not found an inhabitable planet yet. They are a bit far off. This is your only home, it's about time you realize that.

Terraforming. We already know that Earth's temperatures, weather patterns, and atmospheric gases are capable of supporting human life. We don't need to find planets capable of supporting life, we just need ways to replicate Earth's conditions and faster ways of moving planet to planet. We don't even need other planets per say, we could just modify the Moon to fit our needs as transporting there safely doesn't take very long at all. Then we have all of gas planet moons, Jupiter has quite a few. While just increasing our space is by no means a permanent solution, it buys time. Maybe so much time that population control wouldn't be an issue thanks to education.

Originally Posted by drewmandan

Just others' conjecture, huh? I will be brief because I agree on some points and on the others, I think it's pointless to try to fight argument by intimidation. I know you have about 1000 more hockey stick graphs.

And I'm sure you are more intelligent than the entire UN and IPCC, right? Let's look at your divine critique.

That graph is bollucks, and I'll tell you why: look at the horizontal scale. Notice that the spike at the end is so thin that it can't even be accurately shown on this graph, because the time scale is a massive 50,000 year increment. Also note that the intervals for data points in the preceding 400,000 years were probably taken from geologic records laid down hundreds of years apart. This means that if a spike ever did occur in the past, it would be invisible on the graph if it lasted less than a few hundred years. Finally, notice that any spike on this graph has obviously been magnified by taking out the bottom half of the vertical scale.

To quote from the graph within the article:

"The graph combines ice core data with recent samples of Antarctic air. The 100 000year ice age cycle is clearly recognizable."

By looking at the magnified time scale that you pointed out, it only further reinforces the point that there is an upward trend. We can debate about the statistical probability of trends, but the point is that you only reinforced the point rather than an actually argue against it.

Also, on a more general note, "argument by graph" is not and has never been a valid scientific tool. Graphs are meant to inform the public, not rigorously support hypotheses.

Sorry, what am I arguing? I am only looking at what the data shows and trying to summarize it. I think you are blood thirsty for an argument, which seems to be typical of you.

This graph is too short. Also, hello, we're talking ppb here. That should be a big clue to anyone reading it that we may be getting into the realm of catastrophic cancellation and other small-number-sensitivity affects. Ever hear of error bars? Error hear of solid statistics?

I can not find the error bar for the statistical report. Thus, I can not contribute to this point of yours. Perhaps you can find it?

Also, many of these monitoring stations were built in rural areas at the time but have subsequently been claimed for urban or industrial use. Why is this significant? A factory next door will make CO2 levels spike if we're only talking ppb. Now, I'm not saying CO2 hasn't gone up, I'm just saying those graphs are unscientific.

You're just pulling this out of your ass now - where are the stations that you are referencing? Do you actually know the whereabouts of these stations?

Many problems here. I've mentioned all of them for previous graphs. Too short, no error bars, no solid stats, and no solid science. For all we know, that "temperature anomaly" could be wrong. What if the norm is actually 2 deg higher than what it's at today? Then the graph takes on a very positive spin.

It is beautiful that you have an understanding of statistics. However, you are completely missing my point of demonstrating these statistics.

You can dismantle it all with your Stats101 knowledge, but I am trying to find data to demonstrate the population, it's growth, and it's consequences.

The fact remains though that a population growth does have these consequences and that is all my point truly was.

You forgot to include the studies. Actually, Japan and Western Europe are either stable or decreasing in population (ignoring population lag). Although I agree that the population is increasing exponentially on the whole. But let's not toss in the rubbish with the facts. Education does reduce the rate.

I did not forget to include the studies - read my first two quotations. Also, if you are going to throw in little arguments like that, please offer support. Otherwise, you are more guilty to subjective criticism than you like to believe others apparently are.

First of all, it ain't 50%. It's more like 3%. I don't know where in the hell you got 50%.

I got the number from the IPCC Anthropogenic Co2 report. If you can actually support what you are saying with evidence rather than random conjecture, I would love to read it and actually consider it more than random antagonizing acts.

Second, I see no reason whatsoever to conflate the real issue of exponential growth with the artificial issue of global warming. Is the prospect of running out of food not scary enough? We also have to be have a "climate crisis"?

My point was simply to offer the evidence I have of the consequences of the population boom.

Third, global warming isn't nearly as catastrophic as an ice age. Not by a long, long, long shot. Global warming could kill a tenth of the human population. An ice age could kill all animals larger than a foot across. Gee, I would prefer to err on the side of warming. Especially considering climate scientists agree that were it not for warming, we would be headed for an ice age.

You have just demonstrated your ignorance of the climate crisis. Global warming is the overture to an ice age. What exactly do you think happens before an ice age? Please review the IPCC reports before arbitrarily making these remarks. Or, please provide support and evidence for your remarks so they have more substantial value.

~

So... high temperatures will cause temperatures to fall?

I'm so tired of these insane ideas from these green loonies which defy even the most basic logic.

Anyway... I'm not sure what'll happen to the population of Earth, but we're not at the exponential stage any more. About twenty years ago that was the trend, and it was assumed that it would continue, but population growth is starting to slow as we approach the carrying capacity. Now, two things can happen after this; either we reach a stabilising population size, or there is a crash due to overcompetition for resources and an overload of toxins, as happens with bacterial populations. It's hard to determine how close the analogy runs though.

Originally Posted by Zera

We've already overpopulated the earth.

Our inability to live as we do, at our current numbers, without causing pervasive environmental degradation is the very definition of carrying capacity overshoot.

Capacity aside, there are also other issues that make it all too obvious we are overpopulated; about 90% of all our other problems; many of them psychological.

Originally Posted by O'nus

And I'm sure you are more intelligent than the entire UN and IPCC, right? Let's look at your divine critique.

Oh look, another super long O'nus post full of quotes and words.

Originally Posted by O'nus

I did not forget to include the studies - read my first two quotations. Also, if you are going to throw in little arguments like that, please offer support. Otherwise, you are more guilty to subjective criticism than you like to believe others apparently are.

Support for what? It's a well-known fact that Japan and Western Europe have shrinking populations (not including population lag).

Originally Posted by O'nus

I got the number from the IPCC Anthropogenic Co2 report. If you can actually support what you are saying with evidence rather than random conjecture, I would love to read it and actually consider it more than random antagonizing acts.

IPCC is political and argument by authority. To me its conclusions are worth less than dick all.

Originally Posted by O'nus

You have just demonstrated your ignorance of the climate crisis. Global warming is the overture to an ice age. What exactly do you think happens before an ice age? Please review the IPCC reports before arbitrarily making these remarks. Or, please provide support and evidence for your remarks so they have more substantial value.

~

Ok, so global warming causes ice caps to begin to melt. Then the Earth's albedo is reduced because it's less "white". So the ice caps continue to melt in a positive feedback loop. Then, something weird happens in the Gulf Stream because...um...Dennis Quaid said so. So now we're in an ice age. Uh, what? I thought the Earth had a super low albedo due to lack of ice...You can't just take all that heat and toss it away. Either we're hot or we're cold; I dare say you can't be both. You can't go from hot Earth to cold Earth without passing through medium Earth in between. Sorry, I'm not buying that cool-aid.

the real problem IS NOT POPULATION. but our wasteful lifestyle that consumes consumes, consumes, consumes and consumes

it does not matter if you reduce the number, if people are still greedy and ignorant and want to consume the worlds recourses without thinking - then you are still in the same problem

Originally Posted by juroara

the real problem IS NOT POPULATION. but our wasteful lifestyle that consumes consumes, consumes, consumes and consumes

it does not matter if you reduce the number, if people are still greedy and ignorant and want to consume the worlds recourses without thinking - then you are still in the same problem

So if there was only like twenty super greedy cavemen the world would have a resource crisis?

It goes like this:

consumption = (average consumption per person) x (number of people)

the real problem IS NOT POPULATION. but our wasteful lifestyle that consumes consumes, consumes, consumes and consumes

it does not matter if you reduce the number, if people are still greedy and ignorant and want to consume the worlds recourses without thinking - then you are still in the same problem

Did you never take biology at all?

Every organism on Earth is completely and utterly greedy. That's how they survive. You think they let their prey escape due to... well, god knows, moral conscience? Populations simply establish an equilibrium with their environment over time, called the climax community.

Originally Posted by Xei

Did you never take biology at all?

Every organism on Earth is completely and utterly greedy. That's how they survive. You think they let their prey escape due to... well, god knows, moral conscience? Populations simply establish an equilibrium with their environment over time, called the climax community.

May I remind you that we are humans that can mend our ways if things start turning in the wrong direction.

And may I remind you that, sad though it is, humans are yet to transcend biology in the most basic of cases. This is why communism has failed every single time it was tried, and why we are still completely unprepared for the upcoming oil crisis. We have never shown any ability to mend our ways.

Originally Posted by drewmandan

Oh look, another super long O'nus post full of quotes and words.

This is bad how..?

Support for what? It's a well-known fact that Japan and Western Europe have shrinking populations (not including population lag).

Just saying that is not enough - I am asking for your evidential support. Otherwise, this is no different than rambling conjecture.

IPCC is political and argument by authority. To me its conclusions are worth less than dick all.

Right, ad hominems will not support yourself. You cannot simply dismantle all the evidence this institute has to offer based on "to me its conclusions are with dick". Sorry, but you are not as important as you seem to think you are.

Ok, so global warming causes ice caps to begin to melt. Then the Earth's albedo is reduced because it's less "white". So the ice caps continue to melt in a positive feedback loop. Then, something weird happens in the Gulf Stream because...um...Dennis Quaid said so. So now we're in an ice age. Uh, what? I thought the Earth had a super low albedo due to lack of ice...You can't just take all that heat and toss it away. Either we're hot or we're cold; I dare say you can't be both. You can't go from hot Earth to cold Earth without passing through medium Earth in between. Sorry, I'm not buying that cool-aid.

I tried to look up a quick and easy video or something on this matter, but it's flooded with the plethora of people who are convinced that global warming is a scam and that there ought to be little done about it.

I want to make it obvious that my intent was not to debate on this matter, simply show how over-population can have consequences.

For your sake, though:

How Global Warming May Cause the Next Ice Age...
by Thom Hartmann

While global warming is being officially ignored by the political arm of the Bush administration, and Al Gore's recent conference on the topic during one of the coldest days of recent years provided joke fodder for conservative talk show hosts, the citizens of Europe and the Pentagon are taking a new look at the greatest danger such climate change could produce for the northern hemisphere - a sudden shift into a new ice age. What they're finding is not at all comforting.

In quick summary, if enough cold, fresh water coming from the melting polar ice caps and the melting glaciers of Greenland flows into the northern Atlantic, it will shut down the Gulf Stream, which keeps Europe and northeastern North America warm. The worst-case scenario would be a full-blown return of the last ice age - in a period as short as 2 to 3 years from its onset - and the mid-case scenario would be a period like the "little ice age" of a few centuries ago that disrupted worldwide weather patterns leading to extremely harsh winters, droughts, worldwide desertification, crop failures, and wars around the world.

Here's how it works.

If you look at a globe, you'll see that the latitude of much of Europe and Scandinavia is the same as that of Alaska and permafrost-locked parts of northern Canada and central Siberia. Yet Europe has a climate more similar to that of the United States than northern Canada or Siberia. Why?

It turns out that our warmth is the result of ocean currents that bring warm surface water up from the equator into northern regions that would otherwise be so cold that even in summer they'd be covered with ice. The current of greatest concern is often referred to as "The Great Conveyor Belt," which includes what we call the Gulf Stream.

The Great Conveyor Belt, while shaped by the Coriolis effect of the Earth's rotation, is mostly driven by the greater force created by differences in water temperatures and salinity. The North Atlantic Ocean is saltier and colder than the Pacific, the result of it being so much smaller and locked into place by the Northern and Southern American Hemispheres on the west and Europe and Africa on the east.

As a result, the warm water of the Great Conveyor Belt evaporates out of the North Atlantic leaving behind saltier waters, and the cold continental winds off the northern parts of North America cool the waters. Salty, cool waters settle to the bottom of the sea, most at a point a few hundred kilometers south of the southern tip of Greenland, producing a whirlpool of falling water that's 5 to 10 miles across. While the whirlpool rarely breaks the surface, during certain times of year it does produce an indentation and current in the ocean that can tilt ships and be seen from space (and may be what we see on the maps of ancient mariners).

This falling column of cold, salt-laden water pours itself to the bottom of the Atlantic, where it forms an undersea river forty times larger than all the rivers on land combined, flowing south down to and around the southern tip of Africa, where it finally reaches the Pacific. Amazingly, the water is so deep and so dense (because of its cold and salinity) that it often doesn't surface in the Pacific for as much as a thousand years after it first sank in the North Atlantic off the coast of Greenland.

The out-flowing undersea river of cold, salty water makes the level of the Atlantic slightly lower than that of the Pacific, drawing in a strong surface current of warm, fresher water from the Pacific to replace the outflow of the undersea river. This warmer, fresher water slides up through the South Atlantic, loops around North America where it's known as the Gulf Stream, and ends up off the coast of Europe. By the time it arrives near Greenland, it's cooled off and evaporated enough water to become cold and salty and sink to the ocean floor, providing a continuous feed for that deep-sea river flowing to the Pacific.

These two flows - warm, fresher water in from the Pacific, which then grows salty and cools and sinks to form an exiting deep sea river - are known as the Great Conveyor Belt.

Amazingly, the Great Conveyor Belt is only thing between comfortable summers and a permanent ice age for Europe and the eastern coast of North America.

Much of this science was unknown as recently as twenty years ago. Then an international group of scientists went to Greenland and used newly developed drilling and sensing equipment to drill into some of the world's most ancient accessible glaciers. Their instruments were so sensitive that when they analyzed the ice core samples they brought up, they were able to look at individual years of snow. The results were shocking.

Prior to the last decades, it was thought that the periods between glaciations and warmer times in North America, Europe, and North Asia were gradual. We knew from the fossil record that the Great Ice Age period began a few million years ago, and during those years there were times where for hundreds or thousands of years North America, Europe, and Siberia were covered with thick sheets of ice year-round. In between these icy times, there were periods when the glaciers thawed, bare land was exposed, forests grew, and land animals (including early humans) moved into these northern regions.

Most scientists figured the transition time from icy to warm was gradual, lasting dozens to hundreds of years, and nobody was sure exactly what had caused it. (Variations in solar radiation were suspected, as were volcanic activity, along with early theories about the Great Conveyor Belt, which, until recently, was a poorly understood phenomenon.)

Looking at the ice cores, however, scientists were shocked to discover that the transitions from ice age-like weather to contemporary-type weather usually took only two or three years. Something was flipping the weather of the planet back and forth with a rapidity that was startling.

It turns out that the ice age versus temperate weather patterns weren't part of a smooth and linear process, like a dimmer slider for an overhead light bulb. They are part of a delicately balanced teeter-totter, which can exist in one state or the other, but transits through the middle stage almost overnight. They more resemble a light switch, which is off as you gradually and slowly lift it, until it hits a mid-point threshold or "breakover point" where suddenly the state is flipped from off to on and the light comes on.

It appears that small (less that .1 percent) variations in solar energy happen in roughly 1500-year cycles. This cycle, for example, is what brought us the "Little Ice Age" that started around the year 1400 and dramatically cooled North America and Europe (we're now in the warming phase, recovering from that). When the ice in the Arctic Ocean is frozen solid and locked up, and the glaciers on Greenland are relatively stable, this variation warms and cools the Earth in a very small way, but doesn't affect the operation of the Great Conveyor Belt that brings moderating warm water into the North Atlantic.

In millennia past, however, before the Arctic totally froze and locked up, and before some critical threshold amount of fresh water was locked up in the Greenland and other glaciers, these 1500-year variations in solar energy didn't just slightly warm up or cool down the weather for the landmasses bracketing the North Atlantic. They flipped on and off periods of total glaciation and periods of temperate weather.

And these changes came suddenly.

For early humans living in Europe 30,000 years ago - when the cave paintings in France were produced - the weather would be pretty much like it is today for well over a thousand years, giving people a chance to build culture to the point where they could produce art and reach across large territories.

And then a particularly hard winter would hit.

The spring would come late, and summer would never seem to really arrive, with the winter snows appearing as early as September. The next winter would be brutally cold, and the next spring didn't happen at all, with above-freezing temperatures only being reached for a few days during August and the snow never completely melting. After that, the summer never returned: for 1500 years the snow simply accumulated and accumulated, deeper and deeper, as the continent came to be covered with glaciers and humans either fled or died out. (Neanderthals, who dominated Europe until the end of these cycles, appear to have been better adapted to cold weather than Homo sapiens.)

What brought on this sudden "disappearance of summer" period was that the warm-water currents of the Great Conveyor Belt had shut down. Once the Gulf Stream was no longer flowing, it only took a year or three for the last of the residual heat held in the North Atlantic Ocean to dissipate into the air over Europe, and then there was no more warmth to moderate the northern latitudes. When the summer stopped in the north, the rains stopped around the equator: At the same time Europe was plunged into an Ice Age, the Middle East and Africa were ravaged by drought and wind-driven firestorms. .

If the Great Conveyor Belt, which includes the Gulf Stream, were to stop flowing today, the result would be sudden and dramatic. Winter would set in for the eastern half of North America and all of Europe and Siberia, and never go away. Within three years, those regions would become uninhabitable and nearly two billion humans would starve, freeze to death, or have to relocate. Civilization as we know it probably couldn't withstand the impact of such a crushing blow.

And, incredibly, the Great Conveyor Belt has hesitated a few times in the past decade. As William H. Calvin points out in one of the best books available on this topic ("A Brain For All Seasons: human evolution & abrupt climate change"): ".the abrupt cooling in the last warm period shows that a flip can occur in situations much like the present one. What could possibly halt the salt-conveyor belt that brings tropical heat so much farther north and limits the formation of ice sheets? Oceanographers are busy studying present-day failures of annual flushing, which give some perspective on the catastrophic failures of the past. "In the Labrador Sea, flushing failed during the 1970s, was strong again by 1990, and is now declining. In the Greenland Sea over the 1980s salt sinking declined by 80 percent. Obviously, local failures can occur without catastrophe - it's a question of how often and how widespread the failures are - but the present state of decline is not very reassuring."

Most scientists involved in research on this topic agree that the culprit is global warming, melting the icebergs on Greenland and the Arctic icepack and thus flushing cold, fresh water down into the Greenland Sea from the north. When a critical threshold is reached, the climate will suddenly switch to an ice age that could last minimally 700 or so years, and maximally over 100,000 years.

And when might that threshold be reached? Nobody knows - the action of the Great Conveyor Belt in defining ice ages was discovered only in the last decade. Preliminary computer models and scientists willing to speculate suggest the switch could flip as early as next year, or it may be generations from now. It may be wobbling right now, producing the extremes of weather we've seen in the past few years.

What's almost certain is that if nothing is done about global warming, it will happen sooner rather than later.

To further reinforce my point; I am not arguing for or against global warming, climate crisis or anything. I am simply trying to demonstrate the relevant consequences of over-population.

I am tired of people bitching and complaining about global warming enthusiasts because they either base their opinions on a) ignorance or b) ad hominems. Please consider my main point before your bloodthirst for an argument comes back and you desperately try to argue over the validity of global warming.

I bet if I even state this in all caps and bold, there will still be someone who wants to argue the truth of it.

~

Originally Posted by O'nus

To further reinforce my point; I am not arguing for or against global warming, climate crisis or anything. I am simply trying to demonstrate the relevant consequences of over-population.

I literally do not understand this sentence. You are not arguing for global warming, but you are demonstrating a consequence of overpopulation, which is global warming? Care to clear that one up? I seriously don't understand the logic here.

Originally Posted by O'nus

I am tired of people bitching and complaining about global warming enthusiasts because they either base their opinions on a) ignorance or b) ad hominems. Please consider my main point before your bloodthirst for an argument comes back and you desperately try to argue over the validity of global warming.

I bet if I even state this in all caps and bold, there will still be someone who wants to argue the truth of it.

~

See, the problem is, you're wrong. That big thing you quoted makes no sense from a thermodynamic perspective. I read it all the way through, and, frankly, most of it was explaining either a) why the mid-atlantic currents are good for Europe, and b) why them stopping would be bad. Ok, I don't dispute that part of it.

What I dispute, and merely from a logical standpoint and based on the lack of evidence presented by you, the person making the positive claim, is that heat will suddenly stop flowing in the oceans. That article you quoted just says that fresh water will dilute salt water, therefore our models say this. Great, now show me the nuts and bolts of your models, because that above statement is in conflict with my understanding of thermodynamics. Hey, maybe I'm wrong. But what I still haven't seen from you or anyone is the solid, evidence-backed explanation of these claims. The onus is not on me here to provide evidence. YOU are the one quoting an article claiming that hot Earth => ice age. That's some claim.

Originally Posted by drewmandan

I literally do not understand this sentence. You are not arguing for global warming, but you are demonstrating a consequence of overpopulation, which is global warming? Care to clear that one up? I seriously don't understand the logic here.

As simply as possible, I am just trying to show that if we were overpopulated, there is obvious affects it would have on our environment. In this case, I am pointing to the most abundantly discussed topic of global warming. The validity is obviously up for debate, but my main point is just to offer the evidence and graphs that have been offered by the IPCC as a consequence of over-population.

What I dispute, and merely from a logical standpoint and based on the lack of evidence presented by you, the person making the positive claim, is that heat will suddenly stop flowing in the oceans.

Look, I am not really heavily into this stuff - it is not my domain. As I simply understand it, glaciers (eg. greenland) falls into the Atlantic belt and freezes it.

That article you quoted just says that fresh water will dilute salt water, therefore our models say this. Great, now show me the nuts and bolts of your models, because that above statement is in conflict with my understanding of thermodynamics. Hey, maybe I'm wrong. But what I still haven't seen from you or anyone is the solid, evidence-backed explanation of these claims. The onus is not on me here to provide evidence. YOU are the one quoting an article claiming that hot Earth => ice age. That's some claim.

Edit:
I thought I should add that most of my knowledge on the matter comes from the IPCC. Thus, I cannot contribute anything to you because you will regard it as "worth dick". It's really disheartening to discuss things with someone who will make vast claims, over-scrutinize, and then offer very little in return.

Okay.. I am stopping here because you are encouraging a debate over the climate crisis which is not my intent. My intent was only to show what overpopulation can do. This is one theory. I am not saying it is fact. Calm down.

~

Originally Posted by O'nus

Okay.. I am stopping here because you are encouraging a debate over the climate crisis which is not my intent. My intent was only to show what overpopulation can do. This is one theory. I am not saying it is fact. Calm down.

~

And that's the whole point of the thread. Thank you.

These are rough translations from Danish to English:

"As the first, the researcher Graham Turner from the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Institution in Australia compared the actual developments since the publication of "Limits to Growth" with the different scenarios in the book. The comparison shows a good agreement between the "standard run" scenario of the second edition of the book from 1974 (green curves) and actual development (purple curves). In scenario "comprehensive technology" (red curves) seeks sustainability problems solved only through technology. In scenario "stabilized world" (blue curves) using both technological and social solutions to achieve a kind of equilibrium state. (Source: Graham Turner - Graphics: Lasse Jensen)"

Population



----

Food production (Calorie per citizen per year)



----

Industrial production (1000 dollar per citizen per year)



----

Global pollution (CO2 PPM)



----

Since it is very difficult to quantify the amount of irreplaceable resources on Earth, indicating the two sets of data (purple circles) estimated lower and upper limits each year for the Earth's fossil fuels such as coal, natural gas and oil, while other minerals are assumed to be infinite .

Irreplaceable ressources (1,0 level = 1900 A.D)



----

Source: "The Limits to Growth" updated with new data